Serco manual 'outdated', but Bowen won't talk about new training docs

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen called the 2009 and 2010 Serco training manual published this week by Crikey "out-dated" and "no-longer in use", yet Bowen, the Immigration Department and Serco have refused to detail how it has been changed.

Share

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen responded to Crikey‘s publication of the 2009 and 2010 Serco training manual — calling the manual “out-dated” and “no-longer in use”. Yet Bowen, the Immigration Department and Serco have refused to detail how the British-owned multinational has altered or updated it.

A spokesperson for Bowen told Crikey this morning the Minister would not be “discussing further the contents of the current manual for matters of operational security”.

When asked how many Serco guards trained in combat techniques to hit, strike and jab asylum seekers remain employed in the detention system, a Serco spokesperson responded that “staff receive refresher training at least annually, based on the most recent training materials”.

Serco didn’t explain what has been altered or updated in its induction documents, despite Department spokesperson Sandi Logan asserting there has been “at least four iterations” of the Serco training manual since 2009-10, including a 2012 version.

Yesterday, Crikey released 400 pages from manuals, including illustrated sections on the use of force believed to be similar to those Serco has previously fought to keep out of the public realm.

It includes graphic sections on how “Client Services Officers” — many with the same level of training as nightclub bouncers — are to “hit” and “strike” asylum seekers, and how to needle jugulars and pressure points in the event of a ruckus.

Crikey understands that despite Serco’s high staff turnover, many guards that received the controversial training remain in the nine-lockup Serco-run system across the country. This morning, the Department of Immigration declined to elaborate on whether the sections dealing with the Use of Force and Use of Restraints were still taught.

According to several media reports in late January, defence lawyers in the NT Magistrates’ Court requested a 2011 version of the training manual, including Use of Force, after three Darwin-based detainees — Haroon Rashid, Abdul Basir and Habiburahmam — appeared in court on charges of assaulting a guard. However, Serco’s lawyer successfully argued it should be suppressed because they were not in the “public interest”.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young will today put a formal motion to the Senate calling on the government to release all of Serco’s manuals.

She will press the Department to prove its documents meet the duty of care provisions in Serco’s contract, released last year to New Matilda after an extended Freedom of Information fight.

“We want the department to prove its claims that the manuals meet the conditions of its contract with Serco and the department’s duty of care to all workers and asylum seekers,” Hanson-Young said.

“How does the Minister believe his department is abiding by its duty of care if the very department says it is not responsible in any way for the training of staff in the facilities?”

Overnight, Bowen issued an official statement on the matter, stating the manual had been superseded by other versions.

Bowen suggested that the instructions on how to hit asylum seekers with batons were irrelevant because “Serco staff in immigration detention facilities do not carry weapons”. And “any use of force or restraint in any detention environment is used strictly as a last resort”.

However, Serco stated this morning that in “extreme circumstances” batons may be “approved for defensive use by a very limited number of specially trained staff, along with other personal protective equipment”.

Logan in Immigration said “approved instruments” might sometimes be employed: “The department may agree to approved instruments for use of control such as flexi-cuffs from time to time, if a high level of risk is assessed, but only after approvals have been sought.” But guards only rarely accessed the instruments “… temporarily where the use of force or control is required”.

The Minister said a recent review into detention incidents at Christmas Island at Villawood had explained the clear Use of Force’ guidelines that Serco staff must adhere to.

Logan also repeated the line that the 2010 training documents were superseded. He also accused Crikey of making “unsubstantiated” allegations on the use of force, despite Crikey‘s stories quoting from an official Serco document.

Crikey asked Logan the following questions but he declined:

You claim there have been “at least four iterations” of the Serco training manual since 2009-10. What specifically has changed between 2009-10 and March 15, 2012?

Does the 2012 training manual contain a section on Use of Force and Use of Restraints?

How many guards trained using the 2009 and 2010 training manuals are still employed by Serco?

You say that “approved instruments for control” include “flexi-cuffs”. Have guards ever used batons?

Are any batons present inside Australia’s detention centres? Who is authorised to use batons?

You allege that Crikey has made a series of “unsubstantiated allegations” about the use of force. Given that the quotes are drawn from an official Serco document, how precisely are they unsubstantiated?

*You can read the full response from Serco, the Immigration Department and Immigration Minister Chris Bowen in our comments section.

I hope GREENS Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has some sucess getting the training information into public access. Who done the printing? Not much use having a batton if you have not been trained in its correct use! That would open questions about workplace safety. Edward James

Surely this refusal contravenes new FOI legislation. Would the Ombudsman be able to force the release under the legislation. Or is this government no different to the Howard Government in failing on commitments of greater transparency.

Whilst distancing myself from the re volt ingly ra cist and small minded presumption of our resident tr oll “Gee Wizz,” I do believe that it is naive in the extreme to presuppose that staff employed at a detention facility (of any kind) would not be trained in self defense.

There are no ‘illegals’ Gee Whiz, apart from the visa over-stayers who cause little trouble on the whole and are removed from Australia quickly.

As for character tests, we as a county along with the USA, UK and the Coalition of The Willing would probably fail one with our propensity to invade countries who have never harmed us and kill their citizens in the thousands.

Get a grip Gee Whiz. Nothing justifies Serco treating refugees as criminals when they have committed no crime by being a refugee. Serco are inappropriate to run detention centres. Their experience as a company is in jails, and detention centres are not jails. Refugees are fleeing war and trauma and torture in their own country, and in transit countries on the way. What they need when they get to Australia is fair and expeditious processing of their applications. What they need is understanding from the Australian people of their circumstances, not hate and fear and marginalisation.

We’ve been through this many many time… unlawful does not mean illegal. Otherwise the legislation would have described entry without the paperwork as a crime. It didn’t. And for good reason. As the High Court has recently reminded the Government.

It’s all very well for you to be concerned about boat arrivals. But at least make some attempt to actually understand the legal and moral position before getting all frothy around the mouth.

Actually I’m not sure how “well behaved” you would be if you found yourself locked up without having committed a crime, without charge, without any release date – for years. I know I’d be getting pretty stroppy. And I would hope you would be too.

[“Actually I’m not sure how “well behaved” you would be if you found yourself locked up without having committed a crime, without charge, without any release date – for years. I know I’d be getting pretty stroppy. And I would hope you would be too”]

Hi Petes,

I’ve actually seen what a real refugee camp looks like am reminded that real refugee’s sometimes spend decades in these hell holes, so if I was a dinky-di, true-blue reffo I wouldn’t be kicking up a stink about staying in air-conditioned, pay-TV, 3 square meals a day comfort for 6 months while my application was processed. In fact, i’d be incredibly thankful to the country that has taken me in to give me an oppurtinity at a new life.

I wouldn’t be burning the place down because I had to wait a few months for my application to processed. I get the feeling that these illegals haven’t actually ever spent a day in a real refugee camp, let alone see one. They were promised an insta-visa by their people smugglers after they fly in on Indonesian Airways, beernuts on the journey in no doubt, and are just a little annoyed when they realise that they have a few months wait in a detention centre.

Of course Labors only solution to this is to encourage more boats by making the process just as the people smugglers promised… insta-visas on arrival and out living on centrelink payments care of the Australian taxpayer.

And Labor scratches their heads and wonder why the boats keep pouring in… stupid or ignorant?

In any event, perhaps those within Crikey and indeed the Government itself should outline exactly how the Serco officers should deal with violent detainees. If they are critical of the previous or present practices or seeking to merely to ‘beat up’ a story (excuse the pun), then they should themselves publish an official guide on how to deal with violent individuals, how to subdue irrational aggressive behaviour or simply how to deal with physical interactions with non-compliant persons. This guide should then be enforced across the board. Should a Serco officer be hurt, then any costs would of course be borne by the publishers of the policy.

[“We’ve been through this many many time… unlawful does not mean illegal. Otherwise the legislation would have described entry without the paperwork as a crime. It didn’t. And for good reason. As the High Court has recently reminded the Government.”]

If something is unlawful, is it legal?

And if not, whats the definition of something thats not legal? Oh thats right… Illegal.

[“There is no requirement on earth for anyone to spend 20 years in a refugee camp, but having got to the refugee camp they are safe.”]

And they burn their ID papers why again?

These people are shopping around for a better life, they aren’t really refugees. Real refugees sit in squalid tent camps on a U.N ration of a cup of rice a day, they aren’t jetsetting across the world on international airlines, paying some back alley people smuggler in Jakarta $10K and sailing in on a boat wearing Guicci sunglasses.

They’ve really taken the left for a ride on this one. How could anyone be so gullible to believe these people deserve spots over those in the camps? Honestly?

As Peter Ormonde points out so few people in this country really understand our legal, moral and international obligations towards refugees, however they arrive, even though it has been clearly explained so many times. That raises the question of capacity to understand and or willingness to understand. Prejudice, bigotry and ignorance clouds the intellect, and like Charlie Brown’s blanket, provides a comfort zone through which to interpret a complicated world.

I don’t think the problem is Australians not understanding our international or moral obligations towards refugees. It is more the open ended nature of those obligations and the potential for large increases in refugee numbers in the medium to long term (There are currently 15 million world wide).
Many refugee advocates do not having the willingness or ability to question how much the future numbers could increase. It is this blindness to question that makes many other Australians suspicious and adds to the negative attitudes.

I think Australians would be far more accepting of the relatively small numbers arriving so long as they had faith in the Government not to let the inflow get out of control.

It would be wrong to think that Australia’s legal position cannot be changed if it leads to the population voting for politicians like Tony Abbott.